I can't tell the difference except in fps AND Tower view.This post is really not directed to the folks with Gig machines and $400 video cards or people with stock in nVida or ATI. It's for the guys like me who have to make do with what we got. Win ME, Pent III 700 mhz, 440 MX 64MB (4345 drivers), 384 MB RAM.I brought my resolution settings over from FS2002 where I was using 800x600x32 to keep my FPS up. I WAS using the same resolution in FS2004. I'm not really clear on what controls what. In FS2004 it was suggested to uncheck AA in flight sim and let the video card AA do the work, which I did.My screen resolution for the video card is 800x600x32. I was flying the Cub around northern Michigan last night with the flight sim (FS2004) resolution at 800x600x32. In some situations where FPS and scenery are not important, I have switched the resolution to 1024x763x32 to make the GPS display (numbers) clearer. This time last night I switched to 1024x763x16. My FPS went to 14.9 from a normal 9-10(I was locked at 15)and the flight was smoother in controlling the airplane and pan views. I could only detect some bad graphics on the Cub in Tower view which I only see when I'm passing through the views. Everything else seemed normal. I made several switches back and forth between 16 and 32 bit and couldn't see any difference. This did not work the same when I tried it FS2002. 16 bit didn't work for me on the 2D panels in 2K2. Anyway 2K4 (FS9) seems to work differently with the resolution settings than 2K2.I haven't done a lot of tweeking with 1024x763x16 but I just wanted to suggest to the guys with the lower end system to try experimenting between 16 and 32 bit and see if it works for them in smoothing out the sim. Just like every TV store you walk into, all the TVs look different.

I've been running at 800x600x32....which gives my lower end system a good 5 fps push over the higher resolutions. My monitor is too small to see any good improvement at the higher resolutions anyway...Otherwise, The 16 bit suggestion is great, but theres one caveat--some aircraft's textures will look corrupt or a bit cartoonish. Depends on the level of texturing involved. From any distance, it may not be a problem, but some aircraft that offer dynamic wing views may suffer a bit.I haven't experimented with dithering textures down, however.I do feel that 16 bit in FS2004 is far better than 16 bit in FS2002. Except for the aircraft issue I mentioned, there's fewer artifacts...and it does up performance.Regards,John

Howdy,Preamble: Okay, I do have a new, faster rig (Compaq S4040AN, P4, 2.6MHz., 512Mb. ... yada yada, yada), but it came with an intergrated SiS 64 Mb. video card that was totally untweakable. So, disabled this and re-installed the trusty GeForce2 MX400 (32 Mb.!!!) and 45.23 drivers (okay, so no water reflections, but what the hey). At first, things were pretty grim, trouble with stutters (both game and sound) and constantly slow fps (5-7 fps). Of course, this was to be expected. However, by persisting, have discovered that I am now able to have ALL sliders to the far right (with the exception of Texture, which must stay at Medium) by having a screen resolution of 1280x1024x16, no AA (except that it is controlled by the game), AFx2, et cetera (this resolution is an acceptable compromise for the jaggies), and now maintain a constant fps of 19.5 (at least in the areas that I enjoy flying in: the Caribbean). But, should I decide to push the resolution to 32 bit, then all manner of hell breaks loose.I know the limitations of my video card, and yes, I am working towards replacing it (it will just be some time, that's all); but, in the meantime, 16 bit appears to be the answer, at least for this happy camper. :-lol

CapI have a GEForce2 MX440 and have gone thru pretty much all the combinations of settings also and finally settled on 1600x1200x16 full screen, no AA at all. Trilinear in FS and AF 2x and Texture Sharpening in the driver. I have it locked on 18 FPS but it can get up to the high 20's on occasion if I have unlimited set.I suppose I might be one of those fortunate people that never developed a great sense of texture but the 8 or 9 FPS more generated by 16 bit makes the sim very flyable, even around large cities and airports and most of the settings are quite high.Interesting observation:1. Set resolution to 1600x1200x32 full screen, no AA in either driver or FS.2. Set resolution to 1600x1200x32 full screen, AA set in FS, driver AA set to application.3. Set resolution to 1600x1200x16 full screen, no AA in either driver or FS.4. Set resolution to 1600x1200x16 full screen, AA set in FS, driver AA set to application.All other settings can remain as you have them.The first 3 produce what I would call predictable FPS for a GF2, but I was surprised by the low FPS produced by number 4. Numbers 1 and 2 produce better FPS than number 4. I have no idea why this would be so.

CAPI went down to St. Thomas to check out your Carribean that you like to fly in. It was beautiful in the Caravan Amph w/ Imtbprp2 sounds by Leon "pancreas" Medado. I need to install the waterland effects that's in 2002 into 2004.I hope you're are using FSW clouds, Gerrish's trees (nice palms), Ed Truthan's water. I still don't understand why the nvida cards don't produce the sun's effect on the water (like in 2002) I get reflections on the water that makes it appear 3D. Using 16 bit is really making the flying enjoyable now.

Something I haven't seen in this thread is what the 16 and 32 numbers mean. I might have (ok, ok, probably did) missed it but, anyway...The 16 bit colors and 32 bit colors are not far enough apart to be noticable to but the most discerning eye. If you check your windows color resolution you will see that 16 is High Color and 32 is true color. To most folks, there is really not a whole lot of difference.Just thought I'd throw that out to make a nuisance of myself.:-lol :-lol :-jumpy

Howdy Daryll,Yes, do install the 2K2 waterland fx; it works fine. Me, I fly da Goose most of the time, and this fx has to be one of the first to be added to 2K4, IMO. :-lolYep, am using FSW clouds, Gerrish trees (the palms are nice, although I prefer John deLangstrin's (sp?) palms, meself :-) ), and was using Ed's water textures until the recent release of the new ones (forgotten the name of the author, sorry). Did this because comparing FS screenshots of certain Caribbean harbours with real life photos displayed discrepencies in water colouration. For example: using Ed's textures at Charlotte Amalie (St. Thomas harbour), the water is rendered as a solid aquamarine, when in rl it is a light blue with subtle tinges of aqua. I know; picky! picky! :-lolAs for the older nVidia card's inability to render reflections: it simply boils down to older technology being unable to process the newer alpha (DirectX8-9(?)) channels (well, that's how I understand it; I'm sure some technical guru will pounce on this an' have a field day. By all means, go ahead and enlighten me; please. :-lol)Yep, changing to 16 bit (as a present solution until the next big purchase) has made the sim a whole lot more enjoyable. Heck, even flew from Aruba to Trinidad the other night, simply for the enjoyment of it (rather than as a test bed to moniter fps, stutters, glitches, et cetera).

Howdy Bob,Yep, have also tried the 1600x1200x16 setting; and yes, it really does cure the jaggies (with no AA). It's just that when exiting the flight (back to the display/settings/create flight area) these tired, old, eyes of mine, need a magnifying glass to see anything clearly. :-lol Interesting observation; and one which also puzzles me, too. One would expect it to be the other way around.

CapI hit alt/enter and go to the 1024x768 windowed mode for any text reading. Tired old eyes here also.Yes, it's as if certain combinations work better than other combinations that you would expect to give better results.

Cap, please see if you can find the author for the ocean textures. 90% of my flights are also in the Caribbean and would love some nice textures. I was about to install Ed's and I saw your post..thanksBill

I've always known that 16bit gives you much better fps, but I never bothered to try it because in FS2002 it always causes problems with the panels, etc.However, I tried it in FS9 and I can honestly say that I cannot tell the difference. Except the fact that my FPS has increased dramatically. The colour distortions that I got in FS2002 are not showing up now. I think I will leave it at 16bit.

Howdy Bill,Author's name is Roger A (great help, eh? :) ). The file you're after is r_water0.zip, available over at Flightsim.com.Hope this is of some small assistance.

Thanks a bunch. Will check it out